If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A bill quietly endorsed by a legislative committee would codify licensed concealed-weapons holders' ability to openly carry loaded guns in almost any publicly owned space in Utah, including university campuses, public schools, sports arenas and hospitals.
HB473 is sponsored by Curtis Oda, a Davis County Republican with a history of championing expanded gun rights and criticizing University of Utah policies he believes trampled those rights.
In recent years, U. officials have largely abandoned their opposition to concealed weapons on campus, but they have held firm on the "open carry" issue, contending current law requires that firearms allowed by concealed-weapons permits must remain concealed if they are brought onto school grounds. They cite the potential disruption caused by public display of weapons.
"Universities are a small piece of this. It would permit anyone with a permit to carry that weapon openly anywhere in the state," said John Morris, the U.'s general counsel. "This appears very broad. It would actually have a dramatic impact."
U. officials did not get wind of Oda's bill until Friday and none attended Monday's meeting of the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee, which fell on the Presidents Day holiday.
The policy implications of open-carry were not discussed by the committee, which advanced HB473 to the House floor with little comment just four days after a shooting rampage at Northern Illinois University left six dead, including the shooter.
"I'm not saying [open-carry is] a great idea; I'm just saying it's not illegal," said gun-rights lobbyist Clark Aposhian. "This [legislation] is not creating new law. It's a definition of an existing ability permit holders already have." Attorney General Mark Shurtleff spoke at the hearing, saying existing weapons laws can reasonably be read to both allow and prohibit open-carry on school grounds.
"I'm not taking a side," Shurtleff said in a Tuesday interview. "You just can't have different agencies interpreting the law differently. It should be clarified so everyone reads it the same way."
Additional confusion exists as to whether an inadvertent display of a concealed weapon, such as could occur when an armed man opens his coat to reach for a phone or wallet, constitutes a violation of the law, Shurtleff added.
U. officials said they would comply with the legislation if it passed, but they hope lawmakers will think better of forcing schools to accommodate those who choose to openly carry firearms.
"It would be incredibly disruptive to the educational environment," said Fred Esplin, the U.'s vice president for institutional advancement. "The difficulty is that if someone shows up in a class, dormitory or library openly carrying a weapon, it's impossible to know their motives and intent.
"As an administrative matter, if someone openly carries a gun into a lecture hall with 300 students, you would not be able to ask him if he is licensed," Esplin continued. "The only recourse you have is to hope for the best or call the police. It's an untenable situation."
Aposhian ridiculed the U. position as worry-mongering and predicted the bill would have little effect on the number of people who openly display their weapons.
"The more [U. officials] wring their hands, the more negative attention they bring to firearms," he said. "There are so few people at the U. who will openly carry. A student brings a gun into a lecture hall, it could happen, but it is likely they will be ostracized by their peers."
Oda was not available for comment. bmaffly@sltrib.com

imported post

As has been discussed on another recent thread http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum52/8330.html, this bill does nothing to actually change what is currently legal or what is currently illegal. It simply removes all room for doubt, even for gun-phobic, bed-wetting college administrators and their lapdog lawyers.

It affirmatively declares what has been obvious to the honest reader of State law for over a decade. No law requires a permit holder to keep his gun concealed. No law prohibits open carry.

But it is a good bill and needs to be supported and passed into law.

All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

"With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
--Marxist.org

"Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
--PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

imported post

Here is the text the bill will add to 76-10-501, in case anyone was wondering.
(3) "Concealed firearm permit" means a permit issued pursuant to Section 53-5-704 that permits, but does not require, concealment of the firearm on the permittee.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

imported post

I note that the bill passed out of committee on a 9-0 vote with even the most ardent gun grabbers voting for it. Only one person objected to putting it on the consent calendar.

As I keep saying, when we are talking about gun laws the penalties (legal and otherwise) are simply too high for ANY misunderstanding or ambiguity about what is legal and what is not. There MUST be absolute clarity so EVERYONE knows what is and is not permissible.

HB 473 does that in the area of OC pursuant to a CCW permit.

If the UoU wants to CHANGE current law, they need to approach the legislature about a bill to do that, have the bill debated in full light of day, and either pass or fail on its merits (or at least relative political strength of interested parties). Then, EVERYONE will know the law has been changed.

Clinging to a secret, or "hidden" legal opinion while harrassing, intimidating and threatening students is NOT the way to run a legal system and the UoU, with a law school should darn well know and abide that simple common sense.

Charles

All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

"With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
--Marxist.org

"Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
--PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

imported post

It doesn't need to. Open carry is legal because there is no law prohibiting it. This just clarifies that permit holders may STILL open carry if they choose to do so. Also, it slaps The University of Utah with a "Here, I told you so!"

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

imported post

Thanks for bringing the comment to our attention Pavepusher...

Nice job Mr. Jensen!

I have never had the police talk to me while openly carrying... Never.

I've openly carried off and on since I was 18... Especially when traveling in rural areas of Utah. I can't imagine loosing the right to keep my sidearm exposed while riding ATVs and Motorcycles... Concealment is very uncomfortable when your either bouncing around on an ATV, or traveling on a motorcycle for a long period of time.

It would be nice to have a statment in the law clarifying to everyone that open carry is legal. Good job Mr. Oda!

imported post

Doug Huffman was Right. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

I love how you armchair lawyers sit back and make up laws. Or maybe you just don't know any better. Time for some enlightenment.

1. "Oh no! Utah is legalizing open carry!"

This bill does absolutely nothing to change existing law. Open carry has always been legal in Utah, with or without a permit, and will remain legal even if this bill does not pass. Here is the only text it will add to Utah Code 76-10-501. (3)
"Concealed firearm permit" means a permit issued pursuant to Section 53-5-704 that permits, but does not require, concealment of the firearm on the permittee."

Thats it! All that says, if you are issued a concealed firearm permit, you can STILL open carry! Just like you have always been able to. No permit is required for open carry.

2. "If my concealed firearm becomes visible for any reason, I will be charged with brandishing, and I will lose my permit."

WRONG! Search the Utah State Code for the word "brandishing". It is not there. You are either paranoid, or your permit instructors are ill informed and need to brush up on Utah law.

3. "You need to be 21 years old to carry a gun, 18 year olds are in violation of the law"

WRONG AGAIN! In Utah, you only need to be 18 (an ADULT) to possess a handgun, 14 for a long gun. And yes, you can open carry a long gun too.

4. "Carrying a gun in a school is a crime"

This is true. Utah Code 76-10-505.5 makes it unlawful to carry a firearm in a school. HOWEVER, it makes an exception for Concealed Firearm Permit holders. Concealment was never required, but became an issue. This new definition clarifies that. 5. "Only those 21 and older with a valid permit may carry in a school." CLOSE! In Utah, you need to be 21 to apply for a Concealed Firearm Permit, but other states like Maine only require you to be 18. Utah will honor a permit from ANY state.

6. "I gave up my right to open carry when I got a Concealed Firearm Permit."

NOPE. You just gave yourself more options. Utah State Code 76-10-504 makes it unlawful to conceal a firearm. A permit exempts a person from that law and two others. Carrying fully loaded, and carrying in a school.

7. "Utah is turning into the Wild West!"

Like Clark Aposhian said. "If you haven't seen open carry before this bill, you probably won't see open carry after this bill either." I agree. It is uncommon. I happen to open carry every day, but have not met a stranger that open carries. I have only met others on opencarry.org

8. "People will freak out and call the cops! 911 will be swamped with man with a gun calls."

I have openly carried for a year now. Never have I had a cop question my actions. Customers at Wally World did not hit the deck or scramble for the door. And my gun has never left its holster on its own to randomly start a killing spree. I could go on all day with the paranoia found here. If anybody wishes to learn more check out the open carry forum at http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/

Kevin Jensen

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:

4. "Carrying a gun in a school is a crime"

This is true. Utah Code 76-10-505.5 makes it unlawful to carry a firearm in a school. HOWEVER, it makes an exception for Concealed Firearm Permit holders. Concealment was never required, but became an issue. This new definition clarifies that. 5. "Only those 21 and older with a valid permit may carry in a school." CLOSE! In Utah, you need to be 21 to apply for a Concealed Firearm Permit, but other states like Maine only require you to be 18. Utah will honor a permit from ANY state.

I thought of something with regards to this and I don't know if its been discussed here before.

What you say may be true with respect to Utah law, but what about federal law.As I understand it, in order to be excempt from federal school zone restrictions you must be licensed by the State in which the school zone exists, not merely have your out of state permit recognized by the State. 18 USC 922(q)(2)(B)(ii). If this is true then even with your Maine permit you're a no go for carry at a primary or secondary school.

Maybe you're good at a college campus asthey are notincluded in the federal definition of a school zone.

imported post

It appears you may be correct. While it may not violate state law, it may violate federal law.

U.S.C. Title 18 §922. Unlawful acts (Q) (2)

(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:

It appears you may be correct. While it may not violate state law, it may violate federal law.

This federal law was struck down in Lopez. The law was reenacted by simply adding "findings." As such, I doubt federal prosecutors would ever apply this law except in a plea agreement where an appeal was unlikley or barred.

“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of
the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes
some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently,
no majority has a right to deprive them of."

-- Albert Gallatin

CALL YOUR REP THIS WEEKEND TO DEFEAT THE ANTI-GUN URQUHART AMENDMENT!

House Speaker Greg Curtis and House Rules Committee Chairman Steve
Urquhart have turned against us this session by effectively killing
both of the great pro-gun bills that passed the Senate. Now they’ve
set their sights on turning HB 473 (Rep. Curt Oda’s excellent open-
carry bill) into an anti-gun bill by adding a hideous amendment to
it, called Floor Amendment 1.

This amendment is sponsored by Rep. Urquhart, and it was drafted
hastily and in secret. It was written so fast that it even has a
typo on it!

The Urquhart amendment actually creates new gun-carry restrictions
throughout the state. In particular, it would make it a crime for a
permit-holder to openly carry a firearm in many places where it is
currently legal to do so. This amendment is plain old-fashioned gun
control, pure and simple, and it was likely written at the behest of
the anti-gun administrators of the University of Utah. Currently,
according to our reading of the Utah Code, it's legal for a permit
holder to openly carry his self-defense weapon at that U. of U.
We've heard stories of campus police harassing people who do this
(which is why HB 473 was introduced, to prevent such harassment), but
to our knowledge they've never actually arrested anyone because they
know there's nothing they can arrest them for, because they're not
breaking any laws. If Floor Amendment 1 passes, the campus police
will actually be able to fine or arrest permit holders for carrying
openly.

HB 473, which GOUtah! supports, does not change the law. It merely
clarifies that a permit-holder can openly carry anywhere that he can
legally carry concealed. This is already the law, but HB 473 merely
makes it extra-crystal clear so that it will not be subject to
misinterpretation by boneheaded public servants.

However, the Urquhart Amendment (Floor Amendment 1), which will be
introduced on the House floor on Monday morning, would actually put a
whole bunch of complicated restrictions on the carrying of firearms.
We’re still deciphering the language, but thus far we’ve found a lot
of bad things in this amendment. To fully understand this amendment,
you have to read and cross-reference the sections of the existing
code that define such things as “concealed” and “school”. We’ve done
this, but we don’t have time to explain it all here.

Under the Urquhart amendment, a permit holder can’t openly carry a
firearm within 1,000 feet of any day-care facility, pre-school, K-12
school, college, or university in the state. To do so would become a
crime (which it currently isn’t). Furthermore, under the Urquhart
amendment, if you have a firearm with you and you’re within 1,000
feet of a day-care facility, pre-school, K-12 school, college or
university, the firearm must be concealed ON YOUR PERSON. Meaning
that you can’t have it concealed in your purse or backpack. If you
have a firearm locked in a case, for example, that firearm can’t be
carried within 1,000 feet of any day-care facility, pre-school, K-12
school, college, or university in the state.

Under the Urquhart amendment, if you were carrying a concealed
firearm on your person with a permit, it would become a crime for you
to take off your jacket in numerous places throughout the state,
where it is currently not a crime for you to do so.

Under the Urquhart amendment, an adult college student with a
concealed firearm permit living on-campus would become a criminal if
he carried his unloaded target rifle from his car to his dorm room in
a locked suitcase.

All of these things, and other things, that are currently legal for
permit holders to do would become criminal acts under the Urquhart
amendment. Thus, if the Urquhart amendment gets attached to HB 473,
we’ll actually lose ground. We’ll be giving up some of our existing
rights without gaining anything at all in return. That’s a very bad
bargain.

Please see the action item below and call your Utah State
Representative this weekend.

ACTION ITEM

Please call your Utah State Representative at home this weekend. If
you don’t call him this weekend, then please send him a message the
first thing Monday morning, as this bill will be heard on Monday.

Ask them to vote against the Urquhart amendment to HB 473, also known
as “Floor Amendment #1”, and to vote against HB 473 if the Urquhart
amendment or any other hostile amendment gets attached. It is
imperative that we prevent the Urquhart amendment or anything like it
from becoming law, even if it means that we have to kill HB 473.
Emphasize that you support HB 473 only in its current form, without
amendments. Floor Amendment #1 (the Urquhart Amendment) must be
defeated at all costs, even if it means killing the entire bill.

Special note: If you are a convention delegate or other office
holder in the political party to which your rep belongs, please tell
him this. Or if you are thinking of becoming a delegate this spring,
please tell him this.

In addition, House Speaker Greg Curtis and Rep. Urquhart need to have
their phones ringing off the hook this weekend, with hundreds of
people calling them to ask them to pass HB 473 WITHOUT AMENDMENTS and
to kill the Urquhart amendment (Floor Amendment #1).

To get your own representative’s home phone number and e-mail, go to http://www.goutahorg.org and click on “legislative contacts”. Many
reps probably only access their House e-mail when they’re at the
Capitol, so phone calls are best over the weekend.

If you use the phone, just leave a simple message such as: “I’m a gun
owner and an active voter and I’m calling in regard to HB 473.
Please do whatever you have to do to prevent Floor Amendment 1 from
becoming law, even this means killing HB 473 completely. HB 473
should only pass without amendments.”

As an active voter and gun owner living in your district, I ask you
to do everything in your power to prevent Rep. Steve Urquhart’s
amendment to HB 473 (Floor Amendment 1) from becoming law. While I
strongly support HB 473 in its current form, I would ask you to
oppose the entire bill and try to kill it if Floor Amendment 1 (or
anything like it) gets attached. Floor Amendment 1 would turn HB 473
into a gun-control bill by adding new restrictions that don’t exist
in the current law.

Floor Amendment 1 was hastily drafted (note that it even contains
typos) and, if you cross-reference it with the relevant portions of
the Utah Code, you’ll find that it would add various unacceptable
restrictions to the existing gun-carry laws and create numerous
unintended consequences, such as making it a crime for a female
concealed-weapon permit holder to have a firearm concealed in her
purse if she comes within 1,000 feet of any day-care center, pre-
school, K-12 school, college, or university in the state. And Floor
Amendment 1 would make it a crime for a permit-holder to openly carry
a self-defense weapon in thousands of places throughout the state
where it is currently legal to do so, many of which are vaguely
defined (such as thousand-foot zones around day-care centers operated
in private homes, which are defined as "schools" under the relevant
section of the existing code).

Please vote AGAINST Floor Amendment 1 (or any similar amendments that
might be offered) and do whatever you need to do to prevent it from
becoming law, even if this means killing HB 473.

Please get back to me and let me know how you voted. Thanks for
taking time to consider my views on this matter.

All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

"With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
--Marxist.org

"Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
--PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

imported post

For those wishing to contact Rep. Steve Urquhart over the weekend, he does have a listed home phone number. Be sure to be extra polite when calling legislators at home and even doubly so if you get a spouse instead. Avoid calling too early in the morning, or later than 10:00 pm. Mrs. Urquhart, in particular, is a lovely lady and an old friend of mine from high school, so please be very polite if she answers.

Do leave a message, and ask for a call back. Be brief.

Thank you.

Steve Urquhart Saint George, UT 84770
(435) 673-4424

All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

"With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
--Marxist.org

"Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
--PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

imported post

He has amended it once again!
"Concealed firearm permit" means a permit issued pursuant to Section 53-5-704 that permits, but does not require, concealment of the firearm on the permittee

, except as otherwise provided in Subsection (3)(b)(i).
(b)(i) The permittee shall conceal the firearm on the permittee, which may include concealment in a purse, handbag, briefcase, or similar object carrried by the permittee, if carrying it in or on the grounds of a public or private postsecondary institution under Subsection 76-10-505.5(3)(a).
(ii) Violation of Subsection (3(b)(i) is an infraction, except that it is not a violation of Subsection(3)(b)(i) or Subsection 76-10-505.5(3)(a) if a permittee inadvertently, unintentionally, incidentally, or accidentally exposes the firearm while carrying it in or on the grounds of a public or private postsecondary institution

It now is worded so that is unlawful to open carry at colleges. This is not good enough!!! We must stop this NOW!

imported post

We need the Whips to not let this back in for vote in the House. If they dont vote then the bill dies. As currently written this one isa big problem. OK guys/gals, time to pick up the phone. Use it or lose it.

Not just colleges, but ALL post secondary schools. The ban also applies to public and private post-secondary schools including every beauty school and auto-body school in the State. And there are NO PROVISIONS for a school to elect not to ban OC, nor any requirements to give notice. So some private property rights issues here as well. Literally, removing your jacket for an inexpensive haircut or while getting a quote on auto-body work could easily be a crime under this amendment. Walking the through the parking lot of the College of Phoenix while OCing would be a crime.

There is NO exception for private living areas like dorms. What happens when a roommate sees someone transfer a gun from a concealed holster to a storage location inside a dorm room? It isn't like the U has given us ANY reason to think they won't be as strict as the law technically allows. Indeed, their history is clearly one of going BEYOND what the law allows in this regard.

The ban on OC would apply to both INDOOR areas like classrooms as well as outdoor, completely uncontrolled areas where it is impossible to give notice of a ban on OC including sidewalks cutting through campus, parking lots, and even dorm rooms. There is no requirement for colleges to give any notice that open carry is illegal.

This has now passed the House. Contact your senators AND SENATE leadership and ask them to kill HB 473.

Charles

All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

"With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
--Marxist.org

"Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
--PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.